The Lions' Den Plan

Thank you to Sacred Sandwich for this one:



Visit Sacred Sandwich at http://sacredsandwich.com/

Comical

Daniel 3 is really quite comical. We have Nebuchadnezzar telling everyone over and over again that it is the statue that he has set up. He gathers together an odd combination of musical instruments. He threatens people with death if they don't bow down and when they don't he cannot harm them but in stead the soldiers that do obey are killed. He then threatens the people if they don't worship the Hebrew God they will die but he hasn't been able to harm those that he threatened before. He wants unity but all he does is divide the people. But he doesn't get it. In the end he tells people to worship the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego but he doesn't call Him his God but rather their God.

Irony

Daniel 3 Is full of irony. Here are some of the ironical situations.
Those that obeyed Nebuchadnezzar died when they threw those who defied the order but they lived.
Nebuchadnezzar told the people that they would be killed if they didn't worship the Hebrew God yet he failed to kill those who disobeyed the order to worship his monument.
This chapter really shows the foolishness of Nebuchadnezzar.

The Monument

Nebuchadnezzar didn't want to have any "after this" so he had a monument built. Now this monument was vague so that anyone could bow down to it regardless of what they believed. Nebuchadnezzar had two purposes in the construction of this monument. First it was to be a lasting monument to his kingdom of gold. But there was a second purpose. It was a "I want to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony" moment. This monument was to unite the people and in so doing reverse the curse of Babel in Genesis 11. Music was important to bring people together.
It is interesting that this unity will come. People will bow down together to worship. But this will be the worship of the Lamb as recorded for us in Revelation. Only then will there be unity.

Walking in the furnace

One of the objections to Christianity in a pluralistic society is the problem of suffering. How could a good God allow people to suffer? However in stead of an argument against Christianity it is an argument for Christianity. Rather than go into much of the argument here let's just say that furnaces will come to everyone but when they do who will be with you in the furnace? Christians face the trials the same as non-Christians except they have the assurance that God will go with them into the furnace. Yes He could snatch them out and sometimes He does but when He doesn't He is with them in the furnace. No other god does that. Our God is a suffering God, not only will He suffer with us but He has suffered for us.

Why are they afraid?

In a pluralistic society the pluralists are afraid of Christians and all too often Christians are afraid of the pluralists. But why are the pluralists afraid of Christians? I believe that it is because Christians show up their hypocrisy. Pluralists believe that if we all admitted that we don't have absolute truth then we could tolerate one another and we could have peace on earth. However, in their attempt to suggest that we all be tolerant and not try to convert others to our way of thinking they are basically trying to convert Christians to their way of thinking. They are not only being intolerant of Christians but they are doing what the don't want Christians to do.
Meanwhile Christians are tolerant because of the cross. Jesus died for all people, even those that oppose Him. He humbled Himself and died on the cross so that when we were enemies of God we were loved by God. This is not intolerance, this is not being exclusive. Christianity invites all in, even the enemies of Christianity.
So who is intolerant?

No "After this".

I think that after Nebuchadnezzar heard that he was the head of gold in the statue and that there would be another kingdom after his he did not want that to happen. He did not want another kingdom to be "after this." To avoid this possibility he knew that he had to unite all the people under his rule. So to do this he made a pillar that was so vague that anyone could come and worship. He didn't care that people worshipped their gods as long as they paid homage to his statue. This would bring peace in his realm. If one group thought that they were superior to another then that peace would break down. He had to show that all religions were equally valid.
Does that sound like today? We can be tolerant toward any religion as long as they are not exclusive but if they claim exclusivity then that will destroy the peace. I want to show how this does the opposite of what is thought today. The question is, how can we have peace if one group claims exclusivity?
Do you see the irony? Those that claim that there should be tolerance toward all religions are intolerant toward those who don't agree with them. I will write more on this tomorrow.